Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: Destroying PCs remotely?
From: "JT" <ptourvi1 () twcny rr com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:35:39 -0400
Well he could have said anything other than copyright violator, I still would not change my view. Yes, spam is horrid, but nobody should have the right to just up and destroy something because they THINK they are right. Besides that, as many people have noted, it also has to do a lot with even enabling a technology like that. It wouldn't be two days before some person figured out how to mass kill machines. We have too many laws as it is. It's already illegal to violate copyright yet we keep adding more laws. Now we contradict ourselves by having fair use on one side, but DMCA on the other, and to make a fair use copy of some stuff, you HAVE to go around copy protection thus violating the DMCA. It's getting scary out there.
-----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of Shawn McMahon Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 12:29 PM To: full-disclosure () lists netsys com Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Destroying PCs remotely? On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:49:44PM +0100, John.Airey () rnib org uk said:Your constitution says (Amendment V) "No person shall ...be deprived oflife, liberty, or property, without due process of law". How you can have due process when any warnings will be onthe PC that hasbeen destroyed? Unless of course you find out the person'saddress. If you You can't. But off-the-cuff comments essentially wishing doom on people you don't like aren't violations of the Constitution. When we make them against spammers, we view it as justifiable frustation. When Hatch makes them against copyright violators, folks come out of the woodwork spewing venom. Some of them, ironically, calling for the destruction of his PC without due process. Hatch wasn't introducing a bill, he was bitching about people doing something illegal that he personally disagrees with, and that has a potential direct effect on him since he holds some copyrights. If he'd said "spammer" instead of "copyright violator" we'd all be cheering him on. Instead, you're making statements like "people like him give Christians a bad name", which is really ironic in an email signed with an anti-Evolution sig. -- Shawn McMahon | Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, EIV Consulting | that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any UNIX and Linux | hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- RE: Destroying PCs remotely?, (continued)
- RE: Destroying PCs remotely? Myers, Marvin (Jun 18)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? Alexander Heidenreich (Jun 18)
- RE: Destroying PCs remotely? Schmehl, Paul L (Jun 18)
- RE: Destroying PCs remotely? John . Airey (Jun 18)
- RE: Destroying PCs remotely? John . Airey (Jun 18)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? Shawn McMahon (Jun 18)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? Blue Boar (Jun 18)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? Shawn McMahon (Jun 18)
- RE: Destroying PCs remotely? JT (Jun 18)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? Blue Boar (Jun 18)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? Shawn McMahon (Jun 18)
- RE: Destroying PCs remotely? JT (Jun 18)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? Ron DuFresne (Jun 18)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? morning_wood (Jun 18)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? Daniel Mack (Jun 18)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? martin f krafft (Jun 18)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? William D. Colburn (aka Schlake) (Jun 18)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? Wes Zuber (Jun 18)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? ktabic (Jun 19)
- Re: Destroying PCs remotely? Shawn McMahon (Jun 18)
- RE: Destroying PCs remotely? JT (Jun 18)